Did you hear that last July was Earth’s hottest month ever? Each of of the months preceding it were their hottest ever as well.
This of course doesn’t answer the key question: What was it like in FX’s driveway?
There’s this small town in New Hampshire that has had temperatures below the average historical temperature there for 150 of the 233 days this year*, which absolutely disproves global warming.
*No there isn’t, but FXMastermind has declared that it’s okay to make up facts, because parody, tm.
We’ve already heard enough about the “hockey stick”, so how about we call this Atlanta anomaly the “Cracker Barrel”?
An absurd post!
First of all, surely, if there was a warm period around 1000 AD, there was a mechanism that brought it about. I can speculate about undersea earthquakes or volcanoes which unleashed huge deposits of frozen methane to the surface, warming the planet via greenhouse gasses for a few generations before all that dissipated. I don’t know for sure. Do you?
In any case, we know the mechanism for modern AGW- CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Human industry is increasing the concentration of these gasses in the atmosphere. This doesn’t negate other climate and weather mechanisms, it is simply superimposed upon them.
But, being able to access Ellesmere Island is not the same as what is being discussed here- periods of an entirely ice-free arctic sea. I hope you can see the differences between the two situations.
Anyway, the Inuit culture dates back 10,000 years. Obviously it survived the 1000 AD warm period. Given the opportunity, Inuits would continue to live in the way to which they are accustomed. They don’t want farming and mineral exploration, they want to go on with their way of life. From what I’ve read, the general mood is in the direction of suicidal that they likely can’t. I don’t know how you can assume that members of perhaps the oldest culture on Earth would be happy to adopt the values of ralph124c.
Well, it’s a rather deceptive sort of a jest, really, since instead of showing the data, which is quite interesting, the sound bite is “warmest EVER!”, which of course it isn’t, no matter how much it’s repeated.
Ad Nauseam, Ad Infinitum.
But…
Nice try. Tell that to the good people of New Hampshire.
Yeah, but how hot was it in the Mesozoic, smart guy? It’s certainly important for some reason, and I bet there’s a wall of text coming to explain why.
Further, the Alarmist’s subspecies of AGW theory requires the atmosphere to respond very slowly to the elevated CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations. such that it will take decades for temperatures to increase. So we have to stop RIGHT NOW or we’re all fucked, there could be a “tipping point” and temps will boom zoom to the moon go.
Marriage will cease to exist then …
Just read the Bible where it describes the Garden of Eden.
What’s with all the labeling of people who follow this issue as ‘alarmist’ or ‘hysterical’ and the like? There are potentially catastrophic consequences to warming. For all we know, we have passed a tipping point already, with melting arctic ice begetting more melting ice until… yeah, I’m not sure what. But if the oceans warm significantly, there is the possibility that undersea methane will melt, which really could result in a runaway greenhouse effect. If it takes 200 or 1000 years for that to play out, it is still the height of irresponsibility to let it happen.
As it stands, the only thing I know for sure will happen is increased temperatures and rising sea levels. Some people have made glib comparisons to Amsterdam’s sea walls, as if that could be a solution for the 75% of the world’s population that live near the coasts. The consequences we can be fairly sure of are bad enough. It isn’t ‘alarmism’ to note a problem and set out to do something about it.
That’s a complicated question, and has an even more complicated answer. It might be best to read a book on it, by two educated and intelligent people who spent a lot of time and effort on it, because the answer is complicated.
Myself, I use all kinds of negative words, mostly because it’s amusing, and it counters the fuckhead tactic of labeling “enemies” with negative words, like troll, or denier, or whatever some fuckhead comes up with. It doesn’t actually mean you are a fuckhead, because only a real moron would call somebody a moron. Insults and bile are about the last thing that will sway somebody, with facts being the actual last thing that will matter.
It’s probably best to not even use labels, but good luck with that. Because there is no way fuckhead alarmists are going to stop using denier as their word of choice, for everybody who doubts them , you know, those expert know-everything-about-the-future fuckheads who have the one and only true truth and are authorities here to save us from the evil fossil fuels.
Those fuckheads aren’t planning on stopping the insult wars. Oh hell no. In fact, they are ramping it up as we speak.
They started it … honest, I’m telling the truth here … I read on the AP that carbon dioxide was the most abundant greenhouse gas and I thought that was wrong. So I innocently asked in one of the global warming threads and next thing I knew there were 20 posts calling me a denier and all kinds of other nasty things. It doesn’t matter how badly I reacted, they started it, it’s all their fault. Pffff, accidentally use a maybe little too harsh language five times every sentence for a post or two and now I’m a “troll” forevermore. It’s not my fault, I swear, I wouldn’t lie about such a thing.
I’d love to hear about the “tipping point”, what I have read about it universally violates the conservation of energy. There’s hydrothermogoddamics going on here and the energy to drive a tipping point has to come from someplace. I’m afraid if you’re relying on solar energy, then you’ll need to describe the mechanism where this energy is being diverted to the tipping point.
… and I’m not sure if the fossil fuels we do have will last 1,000 years.
Temperatures have been rising, sea levels have been rising, there’s nothing new with this. Humans have survived and humans have thrived. How can we honestly say that humans advanced by leaps and bounds in spite of global warming. Seems to me it is better to say humans have advanced by leaps and bound because of global warming. Do I really deserve to be called a trolling denialist just because I’m optimistic?
It’s not just Amsterdam, it’s the whole county … the whole fucking country … just how hard can it be? … have you ever been to New Orleans, Sacramento … if you build your goddamn city ten feet below current sea level, you’re gonna get flooded … what kind of stupid motherfucker would do that and then what? … fucking whine about it.
Not so much about saving you. If we could figure out a way that you don’t take us with you, that would work.
I’m not sure what your concern is. The Earth’s temperature will rise and fall until it is in equilibrium. The equilibrium temperature is determined by albedo, greenhouse gases, etc. “Tipping point”, I think refers to conditions where a gas like methane is excreted from storage far faster than it can be sequestered.
The extra heat comes from the Sun. It is precisely the imbalance between heat in and heat out that causes the Earth rises to a new equilibrium temperature. The Sun’s heat is enormous. With about 0.5% imbalance, the excess heat, 10 zettajoules per year, would be enough to melt about 20 trillion tonnes of ice pack per year (though only a ballpark 5% of the imbalance is spent melting ice.) A single year of full solar energy represents enough heat to melt all the ice on the planet. This is a far-fetched scenario of course, but should dampen your concern that “there isn’t enough energy.”
“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons history has to teach.”
- Aldous Huxley
This is exactly my position. At any given instant in time, and considering all the factor that effect climate, there will be an equilibrium temperature for the atmosphere. If the actual temperature is below equilibrium, then the Earth will retain solar energy until the atmosphere reaches this equilibrium temperature. If the temperature is above equilibrium, then the Earth will shed the solar energy.
Now I generally try to avoid calling the fuckhead Alarmist fuckheads because even in the fuckhead Pit there’s fuckhead limits to fuckheading the fuckheads [x5]. So in their jargon, tipping point is the point where some manner of positive feedback mechanism kicks in, such that temperatures will rise up beyond the equilibrium and keep climbing, in violation of any equilibrium state. My contention is that this feedback mechanism requires additional energy, a source above and beyond just solar radiation.
Here’s where the “methane disaster” comes in, the equilibrium of temperature also provides equilibrium to methane. If we can “hockey stick” the temperatures, then of course methane will “hockey stick”. We can imagine all manner of catastrophe if we can randomly violate equilibrium. Bottom line is if your hockey stick draws blood, you will get a double minor and find yourself bench-warming for the Moose Jaw Cowpies of the AHL in short order. So let’s keep our sticks on the ice.
Another issue with methane is that the Earth’s atmosphere is an extremely corrosive environment. A rather wide variety of substances will oxidize when in contact with air. Methane is no exception and in the atmosphere it will quickly combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. I believe I’ve read that the half-life of methane is only 17 years in the atmosphere, far shorter than any reasonable climatic time interval. So realistically, in the 100 or 1,000 year time interval, methane’s effect on temperature is almost exactly as though it were carbon dioxide.
Oh, goody! And since carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas…
It would be really interesting to see the scientific support for this odd (and clearly erroneous) misunderstanding of entropy.
What is the point of “equilibrium” (in degrees Kelvin)? What determines this “equilibrium”? Who has determined what that point was and how do they know it? Why do Venus and Mars not share this point of “equilibrium”?
Yeah, because something like “Equilibrium Temperature of the Earth” sounds crazy. It would be like figuring out the Equilibrium Temperatures of Planets. Something like “Planetary equilibrium temperature” is the sort of thing you might find on Wikipedia.
Or [in a science book](“earth’s equilibrium temperature”) or something.
Them scientists, they even say that Venus has an equilibrium temperature (40C)
Stupid scientists
I did not say that I did not believe it could be true. I asked if he could provide supporting information for his claim.
Thank you for providing that information.
Of course, as Wikipedia notes:
So the claim that extra heat will clearly be radiated away is not established. (And if the Equilibrium Temperature of Venus is 40C, it actually demonstrates that greenhouse gas overrides Equilibrium temperature as Venus is significantly hotter than 40C.)
“Stupid scientists” is your claim, not mine.